Anyone who takes serous either philosophy or theology is inevitably going to run into some version or other of a very famous argument, which I have commonly heard designated as the Euthyphro dilemma. Taken from the Socratic dialogue of the Euthyphro, the dilemma can be stated by a simple question: Does God will something because it is good, or is it good because God wills it? The good in question is obviously that of moral truth, of absolute moral truth in fact, and seems to set up a problem no matter which way you answer it.

An answer affirming the first horn of the dilemma (that God wills something because it is good) is going to clash with an orthodox understanding of God as the creator and sustainer of everything - including moral law - and that He is sovereign over all. In order to make this claim, it seems to presuppose some abstract moral law that God Himself is subject to, and that He modifies His will to that law in order to be perfectly good at all times. How can this be true of an omnipotent and sovereign God though? Surely it can't be so that He is subject to something else outside of Him, as this would imply another force that is greater than He, and God is by definition the greatest possible being.

However, saying that something is good simply because God wills it has its problems as well, although they are not as obvious as in the first horn. To say that the will of God determines the good (which is a different statement entirely than simply saying that it is the good) admits of a certain degree of arbitration to the puzzle. After all, under this theory, then if God were to will the wanton slaughter of human beings, then such actions would be good, and the serial killer would suddenly be transformed into a moral person. Under this theory, it seems possible even that morality and justice would be able to change over time. If God's will were to change, and morality were contingent on that will, then morality itself would be a changing concept, and what was once evil could now be considered good, as well as the other way around.

Of course, many Christians that I know simply take this latter route and say that it is not a problem. After all, God, being perfect, has a perfect will, and therefore not only will it never change, but it always is for the greatest good of those who are meant to be under it (namely, all of creation). Saying this however is to posit the first end of the dilemma: that there is some other objective standard to which God is subject. If God's will is unchanging because it is perfect, then it is as it is necessarily based on that perfection. However, perfection, especially in the sense of a will, has an inherently moral tinge to it, and as such we must have a basis of perfection on which God's will can be judged. To say that a persons will is perfect is to say that such a will completely adheres to the moral good in every way, so that such a person wishes always to do the good, and never to do what is wrong. In order to do this however, there must be some standard of the good and the wrong on which to base that will. In order to find this standard, we again are able only to say that either there is some other standard of good to which God's will applies, or the good is God's will, which begs the very question we asked to begin with.

We cannot therefore avoid the dilemma by saying that God's will is inherently perfect, as we are either presupposing some other absolute truth that is greater than God (in which case God is not truly God) or we are begging the question. If we are gong to make progress in this puzzle then, we must try to look at the problem from a different angle. At heart, this dilemma gains its strength through the distinction of God's will and the good, or morality. Because Christian theology affirms that there is a direct correlation between the two (that they will always match exactly) the dilemma hinges on the authority of one over the other. After all, the two options that we are allowed with the question are that either God's will is dependent upon morality, or morality is dependent upon God's will. As we have seen however the first option is definitionally impossible, as God - being the greatest possible being - cannot be subject to anything. Also the second option is unacceptable, as it either admits of an arbitration of morality, or it undeniably leads us to the first answer instead. We must therefore either accept such an arbitration, or find a third option of answering the dilemma.

In searching for a third option, it is clear that we cannot say that one entity (either morality or God's will) is superior to and controls the other. If this is limited us however, then we are left with either arguing that each entity is mutually dependent on the other, or there simply is no distinction between the two. Is it logically or theologically possible for either of these option to be true however?

Can it possibly be so that God's will is dependent upon the good, while at the same time the good is dependent upon the will of God? If this were so, the relationship between the two would have to be such that it did not obstruct the sovereignty of God, while at the same time avoiding the inherent arbitration in the dependence of the good upon God's will. This does indeed seem to be a daunting task. After all, if God is to be sovereign, then His will cannot be even the slightest bit under control of any other source. However, if they are to be mutually dependent, then it must be in some way subject to the good, just as the good is subject to it. Of course, this alone just seems to be a nonsense statement. What is it to even say that two things are mutually dependent on each other?

Is it even possible for two things to be completely dependent on each other? After all, if one things depends on another for its existence, then that other thing must exist in order for the first to exist at all. In the same sense, if the second object also depends on the first for its existence, then the first must exist in order to provide the existence of the second. As such, it is not possible for either to exist without the other, and so each must necessarily exist at once. There can never be a time when one exists and the other does not. Considering this, because one object is the will of God, which is necessary and pre-existent before creation even, then the good must also be timeless and before creation. This of course rules out the possibility that God created the good.

    Here is something odd that I've been thinking about lately, born out of some personal experiences I've been having. How real exactly is Satan? I know most people seem to think he is a living, breathing thing, which orthodoxy holds to be a fallen angel. While I think this is probably an accurate read of the Bible (seeing as I am not a great Biblical scholar, and most great ones seem to agree with this view), I wonder if people attribute too much to Satan. As I was saying, this came from a personal experience, in which a particular situation kept arising. Just as I thought I had a handle on things, a new aspect would be introduced that would just mess me up completely.

    When I was talking with a friend about this, I told him how I was feeling like God was bringing these new aspects up, because I had failed horribly in this area in the past, and He was going to keep hitting me with it until I got it right. My friend instead replied that, with this new aspect always being brought up to cause a troublesome situation, it seemed a lot more like Satan's doing than God's. It sounds like good reasoning to me. Satan is always attributed with the evil things that come into our lives. Whenever something bad happens, it is Satan's doing. My first thought in response to my friend however was, "yes, but God is letting it happen, knowing just how much trouble it's going to cause me." Basically it is the problem of evil. How can a perfectly good God, who loves us enough to sacrifice His only son begotten son for us, let Satan influence us in ways that will potentially lead us away from Him permanently?

    There are a vast number of non-Christians in the world, and a good many of them are atheists as well. Obviously, the temptings of Satan have some considerable effect, and God must be allowing it to happen. Are these "allowances" merely our tests and trials in the world, which we must overcome with faith in order to be saved? In a universe and religion where the sovereignty of God is held to such a high regard, then anything that He allows to happen is ultimately His own responsibility. He created us to be susceptible to Satan, He created Satan as he is, and He allows him to tempt us so persuasively when it would be an infinitesimally small thing for God to stop him forever. The problem of evil is one that has plaqued Christianity for a very long time, and no answer I have heard yet seems to give me a completely satisfactory answer.

    That problem is a bit too long to answer here though, I want to turn the focus instead to our natural inclinations to blame Satan for everything wrong that happens in our lives. While I'm sure he probably does have some hand in the negative aspects of our world, I think we are shifting the blame horribly unfairly. After all, if we are to be held accountable for our sins, then it seems only right that we must have some hand in our own downfall. While Satan may tempt us, it is us who make the final decissions that bring sin into our lives. Satan may be the instigator of temptation, but we are the ones that follow through. It's just like a friend that convinces another person to rob a bank. Both parties are held responsible for their actions, and the theif is punished just as severely, if not moreso than the person who convinced him to do it.

    Satan is being held trial for his own sins, and is trying his best to rally God's coveted creation (man) away from Him. However, we are just as responsible for our sins which he tempts as if we had performed them without being prodded. It's hard to know why God allows Satan to continue to tempt us, but He allows the consequences of that temptation in order to protect the freedom of choice that He gave us all. We can choose to obey God, or to follow the treacherous tongue of the Devil. There really is no third option, because to not be for God, is to be against Him. So this really wasn't a fantastically philosophical post, because as of now I don't really have any answers for this problem. I don't know why God allows Satan (if it is him) to bring up these new situations just as soon as I begin to figure the old ones out. I know there must be some reason, but as of right now, I can't find an explanation that I would be completely satisfied with. I'll think about it for a while, and maybe another post will be coming up soon.

-Demo